Des Moines police are looking for a man who allegedly knocked out his father’s girlfriend with a package of frozen bratwurst.

The 50-year-old woman had a deep gash in the back of her head when she spoke with Des Moines police at Mercy Medical Center on Thursday, according to a police report. The wound, which required staples, was the product of a spat with her boyfriend’s 44-year-old son.

She was fed up with the son “freeloading and paying for nothing” for the past month at their home in the 1400 block of 17th Street, according to a police report. So, around 2 p.m., she told him to pack up and leave, much to the son’s delight, the report states.

He laughed as he gathered his things and loaded them into a friend’s car.

She checked the freezer for any food he had left behind, finding an abandoned package of frozen bratwurst. She tossed the brats into the yard after him.

When she turned to walk back inside the home, the man hurled the sausages at the back of her head. The woman said she blacked out and fell from the blow.

Earlier this month, a professor at Santa Monica College led students in an ‘EcoSexual Sextravaganza’ in which participants ‘married the ocean.’

Amber Katherine, a philosophy professor who helped organize the May 14 event, explained to Campus Reform that the purpose of the “wedding” was to bring about a deeper love for the planet through “ecocentric passion and even lust.”

…(L)eaders of the event distributed rings to the students, announcing “with this ring, I bestow upon the sea the treasures of my mind heart and hands—as well as my body and soul. With the power vested in us, we now pronounce you ‘married to the sea.’”

Some students then made their way down to the water, where they were urged by event organizers to “consummate” the marriage and “make love with the water.”

In my last post, I was rending my garments and gnashing my teeth over the re-election of Barack Obama. I stated that I was proud to have supported Mitt Romney and hinted that perhaps I would be commenting periodically on Obama’s second term as it unfolded.

As things progressed, though, I found that my heart was just not in it. The simple fact for me is that Obama can do nothing right. I despise him. He does not represent me – in fact he has stated that I and my Republican ilk are his enemy.

I did sit down a couple of times to write about a thing here or there. But mid-way through I would pause and ask myself, what’s the point? Why get worked up by and mired down in this bullshit when it isn’t going to change anything?

With that in mind, I ultimately decided that I did not want to wallow in the muck of Obama’s second term by blogging about his constant mistakes and damaging rhetoric. After all, there are people far more dedicated to, and better equipped for, that job than I.

Suffice to say that I believe Obama has damaged this country to a heart-breaking degree. In fact, I believe he is the most damaging President to have served thus far in my lifetime.

BUT… and like my own ever-widening ass this is a big BUT – I am still more politically aware and engaged, as an observer, than most Americans. Any installment of “Watters World” proves this point.

In politics, and by extension our culture since it is shaped at least in part by politics, I know that sometimes there is cause for celebration, sometimes there is humor, and sometimes there is frustration that runs so deep it has to be exorcised. That’s what this blog is about. That’s its purpose. It’s my repository – or if you prefer, “dumping ground” – for my political ramblings.

And now that we are mercifully only a few months away from electing Obama’s replacement, I’m hopeful there’ll be something to blog about besides Obama himself.

Even better that our choice seems likely to be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. If THAT doesn’t sound like a rollicking good time to you, well, you might be dead.

Facebook was an interesting place today – far from being devoid of political posts, my feed still ran a full gamut of opinions, celebrations, critiques and gnashing of teeth.

As for me, right now it is 6:30 pm on the night after the election. I am not yet at a point where I can shrug my shoulders and say, “Ah well, it’s over, just let it be, life goes on.” For you see, it is not just about America having this wonderful system of free elections, bought and paid for with the blood of patriots. It is about what we *do* with that system – how we honor that sacrifice. In my heart, I believe we honor it by choosing people to lead us who truly have our nation’s best interest at heart. Not just here at home, not just in terms of our own economic well-being, or our individual issues… but in terms of who we are at our core as a nation and our role on the world stage.

I voted not for the man who shared my views on specific questions or issues – but for the man who, I believed, truly had America in his heart. I will never apologize or be shamed for having supported Mitt Romney – a good and decent human being who could have done great things for this country – and I will never accept anyone else’s interpretation of what my vote “meant” when compared to their agenda or their own wishes and desires. (And yes, there were those tried to tell me what a vote for Romney “meant.”)

My vote was my own and I did not take the process or my choice lightly. I have serious concerns about the direction Mr. Obama is taking this country, and I will not be silent in my criticism or – should he earn it – my praise.

I believe that I will eventually cheer the hell up. For now, I need a drink. And some chocolate.

This week the Des Moines Register surprised almost everyone by publishing its official Presidential endorsement for Mitt Romney. Prior to this race, the last time the Register endorsed a Republican was when they picked Nixon for re-election in 1972. And even then, they had picked the Democrats in the two cycles prior to that.

The actual endorsement is what I would call lukewarm. The paper rightly assessed that the election is primarily about fixing the economy, and finding bi-partisan support in Congress to take the needed steps toward robust recovery. “When the question is framed in those terms,” the paper said, “Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.”

I don’t think “emerges” really convinces me that the paper stands fully behind its decision. It feels more like they’re saying, “We sifted the cat litter and this is the turd that was left in the slotted spoon when we were done.”

The Register also did its best to prop up its 2008 pick, Barack Obama. The Romney endorsement said, “Longer term, looming deficits driven by Social Security and Medicare pose the single greatest threats to the nation’s economic security” – thus completely ignoring the disastrous effect that Obama’s signature and namesake legislation (Obamacare) will have on our debt and deficit.

And they said, “Early in his administration, President Obama reached out to Republicans but was rebuffed. Since then, he has abandoned the effort, and the partisan divide has hardened.” I am not entirely sure what effort the President made to reach out to Republicans early in his administration. Perhaps it was the Apology Tour, or perhaps it was when he referred to Republicans as “our enemies.” Or maybe it was the way he shoved Obamacare down everyone’s throat, bi-partisanship be damned. Anyway, yes he very publicly abandoned the effort to “reach across the aisle” at an early juncture and the partisan divide has hardened because of him.

Finally, the Register takes the milquetoasty “It’s okay to admit you were wrong in 2008” tack by stating, “The president’s best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House.” Yes, Obama gave his “best effort.” Yes, we all were fooled by his brilliant smile and soaring rhetoric in 2008. But it’s okay, we gave him a shot and now we can admit that he is a failure. Here the Register simply absolves itself of its prior endorsement – I can just see the editorial board shaking its collective head sadly and saying, “We’re sorry Readership, we have to do this for your own good.”

Bottom line: I don’t believe that the Register really believes in its own endorsement. And, while it may be true that newspaper endorsements overall have declined in their impact over the past few years, I wish we could have had the firm, forceful and enthusiastic sort of endorsement that Virginians got when the Richmond Times-Dispatch said:

“…it is difficult to recall a campaign less truthful than President Obama’s in 2012…”

And,

“Obama has proven, in Americans’ real-world experience, that massive government spending, suffocating regulatory expansion, feckless diplomacy and exploding debt do not foster peace and prosperity. Quite the opposite. It is — with considerable urgency — time to change.”

And,

“Mitt Romney has succeeded as a family man, governor, entrepreneur, Olympic leader. He is a man of character, a problem-solver, a turnaround specialist. He has earned our enthusiastic endorsement. America needs President Romney.”

Now that, people, is an endorsement. What we got here in Iowa was simply a heavy, defeated sigh. And I wanted so much more from the “newspaper Iowa depends upon.”

###

Footnote: Despite my disappointment in the tepid writings of the Register‘s editorial board, I am excited to point out that I actually predicted their choice. Now I don’t mean to say that at this time last year, I was gazing into my crystal ball and seeing something everyone else was missing. But, recently, there were a few clues swirling around that seemed to me to be pointing to a Romney nod. As I thought about them, and threw in a heaping helping of “maybe this paper still has a shred of intellectual honesty to it,” I decided to actually put my prediction out there. So on Friday morning I tweeted the following:

Then a bit later:

And again on Saturday morning:

At 7:01 p.m. on Saturday night, when the story appeared in the online Register, I was elated – not because I suddenly loved this ultra-liberal biased rag of a newspaper (which is quite honestly a shadow of its former self), but because my little nagging gut feeling was right on the money. Call it selfish if you must – I was right, and that made me happy.

We learn as children the importance of saying “I’m sorry.” They’re words of contrition that can heal a real or perceived wrong, even unblock a stalled relationship.

And “I’m sorry” is where the left is stuck following Monday night’s third Presidential debate: they can’t accept that words can be an apology even if they don’t include the phrase “I’m sorry.” And so they are unhinged-adamant that the world tour Obama took in 2009 cannot be called an Apology Tour because he never actually said “I’m sorry.” This was a hot button for the President Monday night: making a larger point, his challenger referred to the trip as an Apology Tour and the President got mired down in the label itself and insisted that it was not an Apology Tour.

So let’s play along for a moment.

First of all, I think even Democrats would agree that the purpose of the President’s trip in early 2009 was to travel to key regions of the world and assure them that it was a new day for America and that she was going to change her ways on the world stage. At least this seemed to be the message when Obama spoke at the G-20 Summit in London, saying: “I would like to think that with my election and the early decisions that we’ve made, that you’re starting to see some restoration of America’s standing in the world.”

So, if the President was wanting to make a change in America’s standing, by changing her behavior, then that means he had a problem – or at least perceived that some other countries had a problem – with the behavior he felt needed changing.

Secondly, let’s do just the most cursory bit of parsing:

apology: (n) – a written or spoken expression of one’s regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another.

Notice what’s missing from the definition? The requirement that the words “I’m sorry” be included in the written or spoken expression of regret.

Here is a just a small sampling of the statements Obama made during his round-the-world trip after first taking office:

“There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

“While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms.”

In May of 2009 Obama referred to Arizona’s immigration reform law “a misdirected expression of frustration.”

So really, all you have to do is read each statement and compare it to the definition of the word ‘apology.’ Like this:

“There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

Taken in context with the purpose of the President’s travels, which was to promise a change in America’s behavior on the world stage, is this statement “a written or spoken expression of one’s regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another”?

You bet your ass it is. It’s an apology. And making similar critical statements about America’s past behavior in country after country justifies calling the whole trip an Apology Tour even if the words “I’m sorry” were never uttered. The President and the left can argue otherwise, but to do so is intellectually dishonest and a further insult to the American people.

As we head into the third and final Presidential debate, the latest Gallup poll has Romney leading 52% to Obama’s 45% of the vote. Several swing states are also leaning toward Mr. Romney at this crucial time, with only a couple of weeks to go until election day.

With the upcoming debate focusing on foreign policy, Obama will have his work cut out for him: he’s battling his own lethal policies complete with death, destruction, and a way-worse-than-Watergate coverup in Libya; encroachment on American sovereignty from the United Nations; and the awkward news of receiving endorsements from reviled socialist leaders Chavez, Putin and Castro, just to name a few hot buttons.

I don’t think there’s reason for Obama supporters to panic at this point, however. Although Romney got a big poll bounce after the first Presidential debate, his poll bounces after the next two debates were only minor upticks rather than actual surges. All Obama has to do to win the Foreign Policy Competition is to root around in his desk drawer and find his foreign policy, and clearly articulate it for the people.

But I digress.

Admittedly I’m pretty shallow when it comes to Foreign Policy. But I’m smart enough to know that a decision in one region can have implications all around the world, and I’m intuitive enough to get that “hey, that’s bad, mm-kay?” feeling in my stomach on certain issues. So here are the questions I would ask our Presidential candidates – if for example I had them over for dinner, since I’m 99 percent sure I’ll never be invited to moderate a foreign policy debate.

What should be America’s role, going forward, in the UN?

Do you support Obama’s invitation to the UN to monitor our elections?

Do you support Obama’s invitation to Iran to sit down for talks/bargaining on nuclear weapons?

Do you support the UN’s recent action to impose a worldwide tax the internet?

Do you support the UN’s demand that hate-speech against Islam be criminalized worldwide?

Mr. Obama – If we accept your interpretation of your Rose Garden remarks on September 12, which is that you called the Benghazi incident a terrorist attack at that time, then why did members of your Administration – including yourself, the Secretary of State, the UN Ambassador and your press secretary – persist for two weeks with the narrative about the offensive Youtube video? And, relatedly, please answer the Libya question from the last debate: Who in your Administration denied Ambassador Stevens’ requests for additional security in Benghazi? Mr. Romney – How would you have handled the Benghazi incident differently?

Specifically, where in the world currently is the biggest threat to America’s national security and what are your thoughts on how we should handle that specific challenge?

Do you support the classification of the Ft. Hood massacre as workplace violence, and do you understand that until it is reclassified as terrorism, our servicemen and -women cannot get combat benefits? What plan do you have to address the ex post facto needs of the victims at Ft. Hood?

Feel free to add your questions in the comments – maybe I’ll pack ’em all up and send them to Jon Stewart and Joy Behar, since they host the shows Obama will be visiting in the last two weeks before the election.

I was speculating on Twitter recently about why Iowa, according to mid-October polls, was still leaning toward Obama for President when much of the Midwest was beginning to tilt toward Romney. My gut reaction was to say that Iowa’s economy has not taken the major hit on key measures that the rest of the country has taken, and since Romney is essentially running on the economy, we don’t feel the same sense of urgency as our neighboring states.

I decided to do a little research to see if the facts would bear out my hunch. Using the metrics of unemployment rates, home value trends, and the cost of living index (COLI), I’ve compared Iowa’s figures nationally and to the state of Michigan – an unscientific selection, to be sure, but a Midwestern state which my gut tells me has had a pretty rough time economically speaking.

Here’s what I found.

1. Unemployment – Iowa’s unemployment rate is low compared to both national and Michigan figures. We started 2008 at 3.9%, peaked at 6.3% in January 2010, and ended September 2012 at 5.2%. Michigan started 2008 at 7.1%, peaked at 13.8% in January 2010, and ended September at 9.3%. Nationally, the US started 2008 at 5%, peaked at 10% in November of 2009, and ended September 2012 at 8.1%.

2. Home values – I know that Iowa’s home values took a big dip in 2009, because we bought a new house in the capital city of Des Moines in late 2008. The seller took a bath in our low-ball offer and myriad demands for repairs, closing costs, etc. (to the point where I felt kinda bad, but, oh well)… and I remember after the holidays that year saying, “Looks we got this place just in time.”

I didn’t immediately find 2008 data, but in September, 2009 the Iowa average home value was $134,900; as of September, 2012 we’re at $149,500. In Michigan the 2009 year-end average home value was much lower than ours at $99,100; they are currently $109,700. Both of these are showing slow upward trends. It’s hard to compare this to national numbers because so many states have significantly higher costs of living than Iowa or Michigan. But in September 2009 the national average home value was $221,024 and as of January 2012 it was $204,187. Of the three (Iowa, Michigan and national), the US number is the only one that didn’t creep upward between 2009-2012.

3. Cost of Living Index (COLI) – The cost of living is measured as a percent against the national average, expressed as 100. Iowa and Michigan are virtually equal in cost of living figures, with Iowa at 89 percent of the national average and Michigan at 88 percent.

Analysis: While it costs just about the same to live in Iowa as it does in Michigan, with a few variances in certain product/service categories, home values are lower and unemployment is almost double in Michigan. Nationally, the COLI in Iowa means our average home values are lower than the national average, but unemployment is significantly lower. These statements bear out the notion that Iowa has not had the major economic problems that have plagued other Midwestern states.

While Fall polling consistently showed Obama leading Romney in Iowa, an October 19 poll by Public Policy Polling actually showed 49/48 favoring Romney. If that polling becomes a trend, then debate-filled October will have been a very significant month indeed.

There’s a lot of talk about what’s to be expected at the Presidential debate on October 16. Chief among the possibilities is that President Obama will be more aggressive against Governor Romney, saying the things his supporters wish he’d said the first time around. While I personally feel that the moment has passed to address Romney’s “47 percent” remark that came to light earlier this Fall, it’s highly likely it will resurface in the second debate.

For the record, the moment the President brings this up I think Romney should strike back forcefully. So here’s my “fantasy transcript” that I hope to see following the first mention of the “47 percent” line after the October 16 debate:

Thank you, Mr. President for the opportunity to explain what the press has dubbed my ’47 percent’ remark. A couple of comments if I may.

First of all, polls show that you currently have support from about 47 percent of likely voters. You’ve been hovering around this number for several months now, within a few percentage points in poll after poll. So, 47 percent is a fairly accurate statement of the level of support you have, and historically have had, throughout this campaign.

Secondly, as you know from having listened to the unauthorized recording of my remarks, I was speaking to potential donors about how our campaign resources would be allocated. When I said that it wasn’t my job to care about these voters, I meant only that I would not be focusing my resources on them because they are wholly committed to you and your programs. I’m certain there are entire voting blocs to whom you have likewise not targeted your resources for the same reason: because you believe them to be solidly in my camp.

Where I was wrong in my remarks, was to say that the whole 47 percent are entirely dependent upon our government for their quality of life and have lost the motivation to take action that might lift themselves out of the entitlement culture. You know as well as I do, Mr. President, that this core exists. They have lived their lives – probably from the beginning – in a state of hopeless dependence. They are conditioned by decades of entitlement to only ask, ‘What can my country do for me?’

The good news is that I was incorrect to suggest that the entire 47 percent of Americans who support you fall into this category. While it is a tragic situation no matter what the number, this is in fact only about (10) percent of our population. I not only sincerely apologize for that error, but I vow to do everything in my power to restore hope and re-instill for these Americans the fierce desire for independence.

So, Mr. President, if you wish to go down the road of claiming that my remarks were anything other than what I have clarified here, that they were somehow coldly spoken to divide our nation, hear me now: I am prepared to offer up example after example of your own hateful, divisive rhetoric from the past four years, where you have done nothing but wage class warfare, pitted Americans against Americans, and ensured that everywhere you go, people are left with the message that success is to be punished, wealth is to be seized, and that the wealthy are somehow shirking their duties in caring for their less-successful brethren.

If you want to go there, I am ready. If not, I simply say this to the American people: wherever you fall in the socio-economic spectrum, it will be my life’s highest honor to represent you as your President.